JB: Natasha sent regrets. We talked about this event. Natasha said that
she reserved rooms. I was supposed to send a survey about who can attend. The
following dates July 16,17, 18 are being considered. The first date would be
EOWG meeting. July 17 would be best practices training exchange. July 18
would be best practices training demo on designing and evaluating Web sites
for accessibility. We had considered Silicon Valley or the Bay area. We were
leaning toward the event happening in one location. I am looking for
additional input.

DS: I talked with Sharon Rush of AIR California. I wondered if we would be
interested in the AIR campaign making a presentation on Friday.

HBJ: That sounds very interesting.

WL: yes

JB: What about doing this as part of EO meeting? Could also do on Friday
so more people could hear about this. This would be so great if we could do
this contest-thing. For Friday, we might just have people who want to be
trained. Thursday might be good. What are the reactions?

WL: ok

CL: Makes me wish I could be there.

HB: I’ll be there.

LC: I can’t be there.

HBJ: I will be there.

JB: Comments on the location?

DS: I have some good suggestions for lodging. Our most important meetings
will be at Hewlett Packard.

WL: I can’t commute to Palo Alto. I am in favor of having it in San
Francisco.

JB: We can’t get the facility in SF.

JB: There are still things that we are in the process of doing.
I’ll put a survey on the list. Go ahead and confirm this, most likely
HP hosting the main event in Palo Alto. Wells Fargo will help in providing
guidance for weekend activities.

HB: Was William excluded?

WL: I may not go if it is in the city. I may only need to be at the
Wednesday meeting.

JB: This is still tentative but could firm up before next meeting.

HBJ: Franz may be interested in coming. Can he come?

JB: yes.

DS: I am planning on having a radio program on this. I have asked William
to be on a panel.

HB: Are there other forms of publicity?

DS: There is a reporter who may want to cover more of this. I’ll
try to get in contact with him.

JB: We may be getting inconsistent in our wording. We may have to do page
by page at beginning. The questions are ones that the organization has to ask
itself when building the case for Web accessibility. The next section is
considerations for specific environments. I built quite a bit into the
question section quite a bit of the content for specific groups.

HB: Specific examples?

JB: Yes. We could incorporate these.

CL: I like the introduction section. Regarding question tree, flow is
interrupted by sub details. Maybe use expand technique? My changes and
Harvey’s to the policy change have not been made.

SLH: A number of these changes have been made offline. I hope to get it
from draft to release quickly.

JB: We are working on enabling Shawn to make updates online. Harvey, you
are right in sending comments to EO list. Unless there is something you want
to talk about, send to EO list. Just send to editors’ list. This is
easier to track for updating documents.

CL: In other sections after government, you have @@ sign for more detail.
I don’t know what details could be added.

JB: If we end up in the future with model policies, we could add a link.
We don’t promise anything now.

WL: My suggestion emphasizes the headers to the bullets. The general
notion that the text is “punchier.” These documents have to
stick out and grab out. The document should go in the direction of
“It’s the law.”

JB: Try to make it “punchier.” I was trying to pull in some
of themes you talk about. We are writing for an international audience.
It’s not the law in some considerations and we have to be careful
about this.

CC: In terms of tone, there are several long sentences. Should break into
more readable chunks. I don’t understand why I am concerned about
questions. Need to qualify what the questions are. May want to invert the
sentence “policies under development.”

JB: Do people agree that the sentences need to shorter and punchier.

DS: Nice ideal.

JB: Anyone disagree?

No response.

HBJ: I am concerned when emphasize “it’s the law.”

JB: We take the concept of William and Charmane’s spirit.

JB: Do people agree that intro is effective and may want to use it in
other pages?

JB: Online overview of Web accessibility. There is one more e-mail message
that arrived this morning.

I had said that I would take this slide to the coordination group. We had
gotten some feedback.

DS: I am so used to the word access that the word
“effective” doesn’t seem appropriate.

HBJ: Also make demands on usability part of Web site.

SLH: effective use applies to usability - used in ISO definition of
usability

WL: This can be done so many ways. At some point, consensus has to
rule.

JB: We are obligated to have this discussion.

DS: I agree with William. We collide with usability technology.

SLH: Of course we want usability, but is that going further than we want
to here.

DS: Need to have distinctiveness between usability and accessibility.

SLH: We are talking about getting at it.

JB: I’ll tell the coordination group “thank you.” We
felt that relying on “effective use” emphasizes usability
rather than accessibility. I don’t think that we have been consistent.
I will reply to CG and do edits.